1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to a fugitive ink for marking cotton modules or bales and the like wherein the ink dries rapidly in the field and does not fade or wash away upon several months exposure to the elements but wherein the ink is removed upon mechanical agitation of the fiber and the scouring/bleaching process used by textile mills.
2. Description of the Related Art
There is a recognized need for a fugitive composition to mark cotton modules or bales and other like fibers wherein the mark will not disappear or fade when the module or bale is stored in all-weather conditions open to the elements, but which can be removed when desired. Since the mark on cotton modules is applied in the field, it is also very important to provide a fast-drying material so that if the bale is exposed to rain, the dyestuff will not bleed or run on the cotton. The mark must persist notwithstanding months of exposure to rain, air, sunlight, wind, heat and cold. A further consideration for the ink is that the mark must vanish upon the mechanical agitation of the fibers and upon the scouring/bleaching processes of the textile mills, to which the fibers are subject as a matter of course prior to use. A further desirable property for the ink is that it be efficiently and safely dispensable, as, in particular, from an aerosol can.
A fugitive ink for marking cotton bales and the like is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,505,944 to Turner. The Turner ink has had serial drawbacks as a commercial product. It has had a tendency to explode when stored in an aerosol can. It has also not proven itself amenable to efficient or complete aerosol dispersal. Further, the ink itself appears to penetrate the fibers, raising the possibility that even after substantial "decolorization," the ink could have a permanent effect.
Other references disclosing the use of various dyestuffs on cotton materials are found in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,503,087 to Wolfe et. al., 2,959,461 to Murray et. al., and 2,802,713 and 2,802,714 to Olphin et. al. However, none appear to be concerned with the field application of a fugitive dyestuff on cotton modules.
The Wolfe ink disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,503,087 does not offer the strengths needed for a composition which can withstand outdoor weather conditions, such as wind, rain, heat, cold, and sunlight. Furthermore, 3,503,087 discloses batch tinting as a means for the application of the ink to cotton modules. Based on my experience, this means of application does not produce definitive characters on the module surface.
My use of the Murray ink of U.S. Pat. No. 2,959,461 shows that it does not satisfy the necessary criteria of definitive character marking for cotton modules. Rather, its main emphasis is to provide sighting colors for textile materials. Air drying time is not critical in such an application.
I have found that the Olphin ink of U.S. Pat. No. 2,802,713 does not satisfy the requirements necessary for properly marking cotton modules. Although the U.S. Pat. No. 2,802,713 ink lends itself well to indoor textile mill environments for batch coding operations wherein one kind of yarn can be distinguished from another at a glance, it does not offer any of the requirements necessary for a fugitive ink that would be subjected to all types of outdoor weather conditions. In addition, U.S. Pat. No. 2,802,713 utilizes a potentially environmentally hazardous N-vinyl pyrrolidone component.
The Olphin ink of U.S. Pat. No. 2,802,714 requires a means of drying other than by air, and thus is not suitable for outdoor cotton module marking use.